The most important matter arising under this Estimate now is the recent trade agreement. There is no doubt that that agreement has been received by farmers throughout the country with intense satisfaction. For a number of years we have been told and it has been held forth by certain elements of the Opposition, that the only person in this country capable of concluding a satisfactory trade agreement with Great Britain was a man named James Dillon— Deputy Dillon I suppose we should call him in this House. Events have shown that Deputy Dillon's successor, meeting the British Government representatives in conference over a long period and debating the issues relating to the export trade of this country, has been able to conclude an even more satisfactory agreement than that of 1948.
It is also well to remark in passing that the improvement in live-stock prices which took place following the restriction of trade during the war period dates back a little further than 1948, as those of us who engaged in farming all that time and people engaged in the cattle trade know quite well that in 1947 there was the first sharp rise in live-stock prices. That rise, of course, followed the removal of restrictions on shipping and the expansion of trade in Great Britain. It was the first substantial relief, if you like, and it occurred, as I say, in the summer of 1947. Even at that time the differential between prices of cattlehere and cattle in Great Britain was being narrowed down, and the trade agreement of 1948 did nothing more than to underline and make permanent that small differential between the prices of cattle here and in Great Britain. The agreement now goes a substantial step further and reduces still further that differential. With a steady upward trend of prices in Great Britain the proportionate differential between prices here and the British prices has been reduced by even more than the 6d. per cwt. that is outlined in this trade agreement.
The agreement also emphasises and ensures that there will be no restriction whatever on the export of carcase meat to Great Britain. There was a restriction embodied in the 1948 agreement. It was not, of course, enforced after a time but it was there none the less, and it is a good thing to have it removed so that we will be in a position of looking forward to an increase in the carcase meat trade.
The agreement also provides for a close link of sheep and lamb prices with the prices prevailing in Great Britain. That, again, means a substantial advantage and it is one which will be of very considerable value to the farming community. In addition there is a provision in clause 6 of the annex that the price of carcase meat in Britain will be related closely to the price of live cattle. There, again, there is a definite assurance of a reasonable price and I think that is an important clause. Taking it all round, this trade agreement puts our export trade on a sound basis for a period of years and I think that is very desirable from every point of view.
I felt rather sorry for Deputy Blowick as he had moved the Adjournment the day before and yet he was thrust aside by Deputy Dillon and not permitted to speak first on this trade agreement. One would think that a person claiming to be the Leader of a farmers' Party would have a special right to express his views on the trade agreement. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the fact that Deputy Dillon had spoken at great length on the previous day, whether by agreement or otherwise with DeputyBlowick, he succeeded in pushing the Leader of Clann na Talmhan aside and getting in the first statement in regard to the trade agreement. I am told there was a race down the corridor, a neck and neck race, and that Deputy Dillon won by a short neck, probably a hard neck, and that he got into the House before Deputy Blowick. Be that as it may, he got the first chance of expressing his views on the trade agreement; and he concentrated a good deal of fire and fury upon clause 3 in relation to carcase meat inasmuch as there was a removal of all restrictions on the export of carcase meat to countries other than Great Britain in so far as it related to the meat of cows and bulls. He made the extraordinary statement that you cannot base the agricultural industry on cows and bulls. One would imagine that an agricultural industry from which cows and bulls have been completely eliminated would be a very anaemic one. We all believe in promoting the maximum output from the land in every shape and form. We believe in the plough and in the cow and in the sow, as Deputy Dillon has so frequently said, yet he made the extraordinary statement here in the House in connection with this trade agreement yesterday that we cannot base the agricultural industry on cows and bulls.
I think that cows and bulls do form a very important feature of agriculture and I think that the opportunity provided in this trade agreement for an expansion of the export trade in cow meat is a very important one. It will mean that in the export and marketing of carcase meat of cows we will not be confined to the British market. We will have all the markets of the world at our disposal and as a result we can look forward to reasonably good prices for fat cows. Of course, we all know that it is an inevitable thing that every cow, when it has the good fortune to die a natural death, will, eventually, go to the manufacturer. It is a very desirable thing from the point of view of the live-stock industry that old cows, cows that have passed their days of usefulness and productivity, will fetch a good price, so that the farmer willbe able to replace that worn-out cow with a young heifer without any financial loss in the transaction. That is a very important thing. It is particularly important at the present time when we hear so much about low-yielding cows, unproductive and uneconomic cows. It is a good thing that through this trade agreement we are enabled to secure a good price for the uneconomic or inefficient cow, a price that will enable that cow to be replaced by a cow of better milking quality without any substantial loss to the farmer.
These are all desirable points in the trade agreement. We ought to be happy that, no matter whether it is Deputy Dillon, Deputy Walsh or whoever may be the next Minister for Agriculture, it will always be possible to conclude satisfactory agreements with the country that takes the greatest volume of our live-stock products.
The agreement opens up the way for further expansion and development of the agricultural industry. Speaking as a farmer, I maintain that the volume of our agricultural output is not by any means as high as it should be. I do not hold that that is due to any real inefficiency on the part of the farmer or to any neglect of the land. I entirely disagree with Deputy Dillon when he says that any suggestion that our output is not as high as it should be is an insult to the farmer. There are a number of causes that can contribute to low output other than inefficiency on the part of the farmer. It might be inefficiency on the part of the Department of Agriculture. It might be due to circumstances over which we have not effective control. I do not think we are doing any harm in suggesting that our agricultural output is capable of being increased. There is not one farmer in the country who does not know in his heart that an increase is possible.
Deputy Dillon, having ousted the former Minister for Lands, dogmatically expressed his views on agriculture and harked back to the suggestion that agricultural policy should be based on one more cow, one more sow and one more acre under the plough, notwithstandingthe fact that he had contradicted that statement by saying that agriculture should not be based on cows and bulls.
The extraordinary fact must be recognised by every admirer of Deputy Dillon—and I count myself as one of them—that in the period during which Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture we did not get one more acre under the plough; we got a reduction of 500,000 acres under the plough. I do not know how Deputy Dillon reconciles that reduction in the tillage acreage of 500,000 acres with his frequently expressed claim that agricultural policy should be based on one more acre under the plough.
In the last year that Deputy Dillon was in office there was a very substantial reduction, according to the figures here, in the number of cows, notwithstanding the fact that he talks about one more cow. In 1950 there were 1,206,000 cows. In 1951 the number was down to 1,189,000. There were 113,000 in-calf heifers in 1950. The number went down to 80,000 in 1951. There is no indication there of one more cow. In the same way the number of sows was reduced in the last year that Deputy Dillon was in office. I am glad to note that the number has very substantially increased during the last two years. So, it appears that the policy of one more cow, one more sow and one more acre under the plough is being more vigorously pursued at present than it was during the period when Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture.
Deputy Blowick repeated the statement which he has frequently made, that the increase in our agricultural exports during the last year was due, not to increased production on the part of the farmers, but to reduced consumption. He did not attempt to adduce evidence in support of that statement. As was said by a prominent Churchman some time ago, the policy of the Clann na Talmhan Party has been nothing but an ineffective echo of the Fine Gael Party's policy. Deputy Blowick's speeches in this House on agriculture have been nothing but a weak and shrill echo of Deputy Dillon's more dogmatic assertions.
Deputy Blowick is aware that over the last fortnight at least one member of his Party has been speaking on Deputy Dillon's platform in County Wicklow and has, probably, thereby endorsed the entire policy laid down by Deputy Dillon. Even the Deputy-Leader of Clann na Talmhan has been in the last few days acting as election agent for Fine Gael. We do not know where we stand with regard to this so-called Farmers' Party. It has become a sort of tail wagged by the Fine Gael dog, and a very ineffective tail, if you like. Does Deputy Blowick, as Leader of Clann na Talmhan, endorse completely the entire policy laid down by Deputy Dillon in regard to tillage generally? Deputy Dillon, while Minister for Agriculture, said that he would not insult his land by growing wheat. In the course of this debate he reopened the attack on wheat-growing. He pointed out that the price of imported wheat is falling and that it is now much lower than the price of the home-grown wheat. I think that the Deputy is quite wrong in the figures that he gave and I think that he exaggerated the price of Irish wheat as compared with that of the imported wheat. He suggested that, on the basis of the prices he mentioned, we could get our wheat requirements from abroad cheaper than at home.
What is behind this policy of not encouraging the growing of wheat in Ireland? Is it not obvious that it will result in some of the best land in the country being used for grass or for the growing of oats and that such oats will then be sold in competition with oats grown by people who have less fertile land? The market will then be flooded with oats by people with first-class land which would be suitable for the growing of wheat. It is time we had a clear definition of policy in regard to all this.
It is quite certain that Deputy Dillon's policy in regard to wheat is unchanged. During the whole period of his office as Minister for Agriculture he did not advocate the growing of wheat until, within a month of being thrown out of office, he was forced— I suppose by his colleagues in the Government—to come forward, in the middle of the month of April, and askfarmers to grow more wheat at a time when every good farmer had his wheat sown. That is Deputy Dillon's record in regard to wheat-growing. I think, therefore, that the country is entitled to know his policy for the future. We are not dealing in this matter with the policy of one individual. We are dealing with the policy of a Party and possibly of a group of Parties. Deputy Blowick has shown himself incapable of offering any independent line in regard to agricultural policy. I know that, in the event of the present Government going out of office in the next two or three years, if a Fine Gael, Labour and Clann na Talmhan combination comes into office, it is by no means certain that Deputy Dillon will be the Minister for Agriculture. The Labour Party may, and very probably will, claim that portfolio for the leader of the Federation of Rural Workers, Deputy Seán Dunne. Then again, we shall have to ask what Deputy Dunne's policy is in regard to wheat growing. Does he agree with Deputy Dillon that the growing of wheat insults the land? Will Deputy Dunne, if he takes over the office of the Minister for Agriculture, seek to cut down the area under wheat and beet? Those are two crops which provide a very large volume of employment both directly and indirectly. We know that the growing of wheat provides direct employment on the land and, in addition, men are employed transporting it and milling it. In the same way, sugar-beet offers opportunities for employment on the land, in the sugar factories and in transport. They are very valuable crops. If at any time during the next four or five years, Deputy Dunne should take office as Minister for Agriculture he will have to put his foot down fairly heavily with regard to Deputy Dillon if he is to maintain the growing of wheat and sugar-beet.
While we may criticise the policies advocated in this House by various Deputies, I should prefer myself to concentrate entirely on suggestions for the extension and development of the agricultural industry. It is no reflection on the farmers of this country that output is not as high as it should beor as it could be. The disparity between output here and output in Denmark is not quite as great as some people try to make out. We know the number of cattle per acre in Denmark and we know the amount of tillage there. Very often, people who compare the Danish figures with our figures overlook the fact that we have a very substantial sheep population which Denmark has not got and also that we have a very substantial beef production and export trade, which Denmark has not got either. Nevertheless, I think everybody will admit that there is room for expansion in our agricultural industry. I think it would be a very sad thing indeed if there were not that room for expansion. All our hopes of making this country more prosperous lie in our ability to get more out of the land. I should say that that is the fundamental basis of an agricultural policy. We must get increased production per year and at the same time maintain fertility.
Because I believe in getting increased production from the land, and at the same time maintaining its fertility, I am whole-heartedly in support of guaranteed prices both for wheat and sugar-beet. Both of these industries are branches of the agricultural industry which enable the farmer to get the maximum output from the land. A cash crop such as wheat enables the farmer to cultivate his land and to get paid for so doing. A cash crop such as beet not only enables a farmer to cultivate his land and get paid for so doing but, in addition, it leaves a residue in the soil which will be of value to crops that will succeed the beet crop in the ordinary rotation. Therefore, any Minister or any would-be Minister for Agriculture who condemns the growing of wheat and the growing of sugar-beet is striking a death blow at all the hopes we may entertain of expanding agricultural production. One of the great advantages of a secure cash crop is that it enables the farmer who is short of capital to get on his feet. The farmer who has land but very little money to stock and work it can contract to grow sugar-beet. On that contract, without any further security, he will get creditto the extent of £18 per acre. That is adequate to manure and seed the land properly.
I think that that credit is available to him until his crop is sold. The debt is paid out of the price of the crop. The advantage of that to the farmer is only now beginning to be fully appreciated. The growing of beet requires adequate fertilisers, adequate organic manure and adequate liming, and that leaves the land in a very much better condition than it was before the crop was sown. One of the best ways of increasing the quality of our land would be for each farmer to contract for a substantial acreage of beet each year. It is a matter of great satisfaction that the acreage under sugar-beet has substantially increased this year as compared with last year. That increase in acreage means that a very considerable area of land will be improved. It also has the added advantage that in at least two factory areas the maximum price will be given, as the bonus of 2/- per ton in addition to the basic price will be available.
Last year, unfortunately, there was an organised move by Fine Gael to cut down the acreage of sugar-beet. I suppose the people who inspired that thought that by cutting down on this valuable tillage crop they would add to the volume of unemployment, thereby embarrassing the Government, and that they would also lower the prestige of the Government considerably by being able to point to a reduction in the acreage under this very important crop. The agitation, however, boomeranged to a great extent on those who organised it. A number of prominent farmer members of Fine Gael deliberately and publicly cut down their acreage of beet to one acre. They would have cut out the one acre only they wanted to retain a foothold in the Beet Growers' Association.
The net result of their agitation was that they lost a considerable amount of money and caused a number of decent farmers to lose a certain amount of money. This year they have increased their acreage because of thesuccess of the crop last year. They made this dastardly attempt on the economic life of the country in a year that was most satisfactory for the growing of beet. They were unlucky in that respect because it turned out to be one of the best years on record as the average yield per acre was very substantially higher last year than in any previous year. In addition to that, I suppose the yield on the better lands in Carlow, Kildare and Kilkenny brought the growers more profit than was secured in the past. Thus an attempt to mix politics with agriculture and with economics, while it did a certain amount of harm in regard to employment in the sugar factories and to the economic life of the country in general, did the greatest amount of harm and inflicted the greatest amount of loss on those who organised the campaign. In the present year beet growing has substantially expanded and I hope that the acreage will continue to expand.
I was glad to see a move made to bring beet growing into a new county, namely, Donegal and I would be glad to see it expanded in Wicklow. There is a prejudice against beet growing in many counties due to the fact that in the first years it failed miserably there because of a shortage of lime in the soil. A deficiency of calcium in the soil resulted in a complete failure of the beet crop in many counties, particularly Wicklow, where the lime deficiency is very marked. The memory of these failures has created a prejudice in the minds of farmers. It will take a considerable effort to overcome that prejudice, but I think it ought to be overcome because in beet growing we have something that gives a very large output from each acre of land, which provides a very large residue of feeding stuffs for live stock and leaves the land very much better than it was before. These are the great advantages of the growing of beet. I feel that we can confidently look forward to the future with an assurance that no political party, whether Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Clann na Talmhan or Labour will ever again organise a campaign against the growing of sugar-beet.
Fundamentally, the most important thing is to get general agreement in regard to the basis of agricultural policy. I have no use for faddists who have prejudices against particular crops or particular types of stock. The sane and practical farmer has no such prejudice. He will grow any crop that he thinks will grow satisfactorily on his land and he will keep any type of stock that he thinks will give him a decent return. The general policy of agriculture should be based on the fundamental fact that all Parties should aim at increasing the total output of the land and at the same time improving the quality of the land. That is the fundamental basis in regard to agricultural policy and it is one in regard to which I do not think there can be any difference of opinion. People like the former Minister for Agriculture may dig up imaginary difficulties. They may introduce the Egyptian bee or the warble fly or some insects with which they may be on familiar terms, but these are only attempts to confuse the minds of our people——
